
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
John Edser wrote: <snip> >>JE:- >>Also, I have no idea what >>"separate sets don't" was >>actually referring >>to in your previous reply. > > > BOH:- > Try reading it as an answer to your post. I'm saying that separate sets > don't intersect. > > JE:- > Would _please_ write out (as I > _previously_ requested) the definition > you said I had given, and then derive > from that definition "that separate sets > don't intersect" so we can understand > what exactly you are referring to. > From the 7th of November: "Absolutely separate sets are NOT intersected with any other set." > I agree that absolute separate > sets don't intersect. Do you agree > that absolute separate sets can however, > contain the same type of set element? > I've never had any problem with that - it's your claim that they contain the same actual elements (i.e. that they have a non-empty intersection) that I have trouble with. Bob -- Bob O'Hara Rolf Nevanlinna Institute P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5) FIN-00014 University of Helsinki Finland Telephone: +358-9-191 23743 Mobile: +358 50 599 0540 Fax: +358-9-191 22 779 WWW: http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |